Bail bid by Soham officers on porn charges

Two police officers involved in the investigation into the disappearance and murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells are expected to appear in court tomorrow to learn whether they can be granted bail on child pornography charges.

Det Con Brian Stevens, 41, and Pc Antony Goodridge, 34, were remanded in custody over the weekend after the prosecution lodged an appeal against a decision by magistrates on Saturday to grant them unconditional bail.

The two men were brought to the magistrates court in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in handcuffs and with blankets over their heads.

Stevens, who is married with two children, faces three charges alleging the possession, making and incitement to distribute indecent pseudo-photographs of children.

Goodridge, also a father of two, faces four similar charges.

Both officers were arrested early on Thursday by detectives from West Midlands Police.

The investigation into their alleged offences is part of a world-wide inquiry being led by the FBI in the United States.

The British National Crime Squad has been co-ordinating the operation in the UK.

Both officers have been suspended from duty.

Stevens worked as a family liaison officer with the family of Jessica Chapman after Jessica and her friend Holly Wells, both 10, vanished from their home town of Soham, Cambridgeshire, on August 4.

Two weeks ago he played a central part in a memorial service for the two dead girls at Ely Cathedral, reading a poem called Lord Of Comfort, which had been written for Jessica by a friend of the Chapman family.

Police have stressed that the allegations are in no way linked to the murder investigation.

Magistrates granted the two men conditional bail, but the prosecutor, Peter Gair, immediately lodged an appeal against their decision.

Both accused were then remanded in custody pending an appeal hearing against the decision of the magistrates. It is expected to be heard tomorrow either Ipswich or Bury St Edmunds Crown Court.

The court said that if tomorrow's hearing decided they should be remanded in custody the next hearing before magistrates would be on September 23 via a video link at Sudbury in Suffolk.

If they were given conditional bail they would appear before magistrates at Bury St Edmunds on November 11.

The defendants appeared in the dock together on Saturday, surrounded by three security officers.

They had been driven in a prison van from a nearby police station in Bury St Edmunds, where they had been questioned by detectives.

They were individually led from the van handcuffed to security officers and were released from their handcuffs at the top of the stairs leading into the dock.

Both had blue blankets over their heads and were led slowly from the vehicle across a path into a side entrance of the court.

Stevens, who wore a black shirt, fleece jacket and beige trousers, looked ahead of him during the two-hour hearing, watching the solicitors speaking in court.

Goodridge, wearing a blue shirt and black trousers, hung his head for most of the hearing, occasionally crying and wiping his eyes with a tissue.

Goodridge is married with two children, aged six and nine months.

Stevens has a daughter aged 15 and a grown-up son and is newly married to his second wife.

The wooden-panelled court was filled with the media and detectives.

A panel of two magistrates dealt with the case.

Mr Gair told the court that the offences of making and possessing indecent photographs of children attracted a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

The offences of incitement to distribute indecent photographs would attract a maximum three-year jail sentence because it is alleged the defendants committed the offences prior to the penalty being raised from three years to 10 years in jail in the year 2000.

The three charges faced by Stevens are: that between 1 March 99 and 8 September 99 in March, Cambridgeshire, he incited the distribution of indecent pseudo-photographs of children contrary to common law; on the 6 June 2002 at March, Cambridgeshire, made an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child under the age of 16 contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978; on 26 May 2002 at March, made an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child under the age of 16.

Goodridge is charged that: between 1 March 99 and 8 September 99 at Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, he incited the distribution of indecent pseudo-photographs of children; on 17 June 2002 at Ely, Cambridgeshire, he made an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child under the age of 16; on a date between 17 June 2002 and 12 September 2002 at Ely, he possessed an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child with a view to it being distributed or shown by him or another, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978; on a date between 1 March 2001 and 12 September 2002 at Ely, made an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child under the age of 16.